Bogdan Surgay

2590378
2/5/2018

Since its formation, the US Government government has been responsible for crimes

against mankind. Slavery was institutionalized in America in the past, and many scholars and

abolitionists proclaimed the government and the Fugitive Slave Law as unjust and inhumane. It

is ironic how a government which had a Constitution that proclaimed liberty included in it

provisions for slavery as well. Slavery exists in multiple forms, all of which are evil. In addition to

allowing slavery, the US Government also caused millions of deaths in the Vietnam War, and

committed terrible crimes against humanity.

The US Government has often times been responsible for preventing freedom and

needed reform, although it includes principles of liberty and ruling by the people within the

Constitution. In his paper, ​On The Duty of Civil Disobedience​, Henry David Thoreau explains

how the government perpetuates injustice and what people must do against this. While

discussing war and the government's use of men in the military, Thoreau describes soldiers as

worth as little as dogs or horses because they are commanded to act often contrary to their

conscience, without room for free will or morals. Thoreau thinks that it is important for men to

follow their conscience, not their governments instructions. He claims that, “In most cases there

is no free exercise whatever of the judgement or of the moral sense; but they put themselves on

a level with wood and earth and stones” (Thoreau, P. 2). The kind of government that turns men

into machines is not the kind Thoreau wants to live under. Thoreau believes that the

government is ineffective at achieving what is morally right, because voting is an expedient and

irresponsible process. Voting, to Thoreau, is a game of chance because a person has no control

individually over what happens after they cast a vote. The actual decisions are left to the
majority, and it is not always certain that the majority will do right. Thoreau states, “I cast my

vote, perchance, as I think right; but I am not vitally concerned that that right should prevail. I am

willing to leave it to the majority” (Thoreau, P. 3). What he is trying to get at is that not just voting

is a game of chance, but in a sense morality itself is as well.

After being thrown in jail for not paying a poll tax, Thoreau viewed his government as an

oppressive physical force. Thoreau criticizes the government for trying to imprison him by simply

putting him in a cell. He concludes that the State is cowardly and that it was not willing to come

to terms intellectually, instead the State will use force to get what it wants. He mocks the State

saying, “I could not help being struck with the foolishness of that institution which treated me as

if I were mre flesh and blood and bones, to be locked up”(Thoreau, P. 7). Upon his release from

prison, Thoreau viewed his fellow citizens as people who could not be trusted to propose and

uphold what he believes is morally right. He claims that his countrymen put no effort and no

resources into making sure that righteousness is upheld. Thoreau describes his neighbors lack

of participation in progressing society saying that, “In their sacrifices to humanity, they ran no

risks, not even to their property” (Thoreau, P.8). The sacrifices he talks about are useless

sacrifices, and Thoreau believes his society should be willing to make real sacrifices for the

greater good.

Thoreau argues that men are ignorant in their ways, and that they allow the government

to control them through brute force. He brings up fire in order to show his reader that, if they

have the common sense to not put their head into fire, then they should have the common

sense to not be subjects of an unjust government. Thoreau asks the reader why they conform to

the governments brute force and taxes, and he says that, “You do not resist the cold and
hunger, the winds and the waves, thus obstinately; you quietly submit to a thousand similar

necessities. You do not put your head into the fire” (Thoreau, P. 9). Thoreau also discusses how

legislators never truly behold or question the government which they are serving in themselves,

and he brings up the example of Daniel Webster. In his opinion, Thoreau thinks that Webster is

a sensible and practical politician that pays much regard to upholding the Constitution and

retaining its measures. However, he also asserts that Webster doesn’t see slavery as morally

wrong because he views the issue from a political viewpoint, and not an intellectual one.

Thoreau says about Webster that, “Still his quality is not wisdom, but prudence. The lawyer’s

truth is not truth, but consistency or a consistent expediency” (Thoreau, P. 10). Webster upholds

slavery because the Constitution allows it, but he doesn’t go deeper to look for whether the

Constitution is flawed itself or not. He doesn't reach for the transcendental as Thoreau is trying

to do.

Frederick Douglass, a prominent abolitionist just as Thoreau, denounces slavery in

America and explains why the Fourth of July is not a holiday to slaves in his speech, ​What to

the Slave is the Fourth of July​. Douglas first discusses the freedom that the Fourth of July has

brought to the descendents of the pilgrims and the founding fathers from the British Crown.

However, he then claims that he cannot be a part of this celebration of freedom since slaves are

still in chains. Douglas has to mourn on the Fourth of July, because although it signifies freedom

for some, it reminds him of the imprisonment of his people. Douglas speaks for himself and

slaves saying, “The rich inheritance of justice, liberty, prosperity and independence, bequeathed

by your fathers, is shared by you, not me” (Douglas, P. 5). The Constitution, in Douglas’ time,

was contradictory by giving all men freedom, but not counting slaves as men. Douglas clarifies

that slaves are in fact men, and that the slaveholders in the State of Virginia admit so
themselves. He states that there are 72 crimes in Virginia which would grant a slave death, and

only 2 of those crimes would grant a white man death. Douglas brings up this example because,

“What is this but the acknowledgement that the slave is a moral, intellectual and responsible

being?” (Douglas, P.6). He uses this example as evidence that slaves are humans that can

think sensibly, yet are treated as otherwise.

Douglas goes into further details of the horrible practice of slavery in America, and

shows why the State is evil through his description of the slave trade. He brings up

“flesh-mongers” because that is a phrase that means people that trade in human flesh, which in

Douglas’ context is slave traders. Douglas paints the picture of how slave families get torn apart

and how they are taken in chains to ships to be sold off in other cities. He says that, “The

flesh-mongers gather up their victims by dozens, and drive them, chained, to the general depot

at Baltimore” (Douglas, P. 8). Douglas also brings up the fact that many Americans, without a

moment's notice, have been taken into slavery under the Fugitive Slave Law. He has a spiteful

view of this law, and he believes it is cruel and unjust. He claims that, “The oath of any two

villains is sufficient, under this hell-black enactment, to send the most pious and exemplary

black man into the remorseless jaws of slavery” (Douglas, P. 8-9). The law is unjust in his

opinion and cruel.

Douglas rebukes American Christianity, and claims that there is hypocrisy within this religion

due to its inaction against the Fugitive Slave Law. He criticizes the church by asserting that their

religion is empty worship that is without love or justice. Douglas likens the church in America to

pharisees, who Jesus described as fake worshipers that only follow the law, but do not adhere

to righteousness within their hearts. He says that the church, “Esteems sacrifice above mercy;
psalm singing above right doing; solemn meetings above practical righteousness;” (Douglas, P.

9). He is saying that this type of Christianity is fake and does not practice what it believes. In

addition to criticizing the church, Douglas also explains that the Constitution is the other

perpetuator of slavery in America. He goes against the Constitution because he states that,

“The right to hold and to hunt slaves is a part of that Constitution framed by the illustrious

Fathers of this Republic” (Douglas, P. 11). To Douglas, the Constitution upholds the institution

of slavery and the Fugitive Slave Law which is hypocritical and horrific.

Slavery can exist in multiple forms, and marriage can oftentimes be a form of slavery or

bondage for women. In her article, ​Marriage and Love​, Emma Goldman describes how marriage

and love are not the same thing, as well as why marriages fail and bring unhappiness. Goldman

assesses that there is an expectation for women to be ignorant about sex because if they act

otherwise, they won’t be seen as fit for marriage by society. She believes that women are forced

to keep sex a mystery because religion and society require them to stay abstinent for their

husbands. Goldman points out the ridicule in this by saying, “Can there be anything more

outrageous than the idea that a healthy, grown woman, full of life and passion, must deny

nature’s demand, . . . ,until a ‘good’ man comes along to take her unto himself a wife?”

(Goldman, P. 2). She doesn’t see it fit for women to have to deprive themselves only for the

sake of one man’s will over them. Goldman believes that marriage makes women dependant to

their husbands, because they were taught their whole lives that they would one day have to

leave their jobs and become mothers. Their source of income goes away and now they are

forced to rely on the husband for any financial decisions. Goldman states that, “Can the man

make a living? Can he support a wife? That is the only thing that justifies marriage. Gradually

this saturates every thought of the girl” (Goldman, P. 2). She believes that it is set into girls
minds that one day they will have to marry someone with money so that they don’t work but

raise a family instead.

Just like slavery, the Vietnam War was another terrible crime that the US Government

committed against humanity. Martin Luther King Junior, in his speech Beyond Vietnam: A Time

to Break Silence, expresses his disgust with the American government for spending money on

war instead of helping prevent poverty. King explains how he watched the much needed

“poverty program” for both blacks and whites wither due to the government’s funding of the

Vietnam War. He states that, “I watched the program broken and eviscerated as if it were some

idle political plaything of a society gone mad on war” (King, P. 2). In addition to stopping the

poverty program, King claims that the government put a ruthless dictator into power in Vietnam

name Premier Diem. This Premier Diem caused Vietnam to remain undivided and America had

to send in more troops, of which a large amount were poor African Americans. King states that,

“The peasants watched as all this was presided over by U.S. influence and then by increasing

numbers of U.S. troops who came to help quell the insurgency that Diem’s methods had

aroused” (King, P. 3).

King ties the dictatorship of Premier Diem into the formation of the violent National

Liberation Front, by asserting that America greatly influenced and inspired this violence. His

position on the National Liberation Front is that they have a justified distrust towards America,

and he isn’t surprised by the NLF’s violence since America started this violence in the first place.

King asks the question, “How can they trust us when now we charge them with violence after

the murderous reign of Diem and charge them with violence while we pour every new weapon

of death into their land?” (King, P. 4). King brings up Morehouse college, the college he went to,
because over seventy students at this college objected the Vietnam War. He uses this fact to

motivate other young men to openly object the war, and he want to educate the youth about

what the US is really doing in Vietnam. King clarifies that, “Every man of human convictions

must decide on the protest that best suits his convictions, but we must all protest” (King, P. 6).

By bringing up the example of his own college, he is trying to show others that they should

protest as well and not stay quiet about the issue.

In addition to discussing the problems with the Vietnam War, King talks about how

America should stop waging war and end communism through changing its value and doing

good to the poor instead of dropping bombs. He brings up the example of a beggar, and

explains that true compassion is not just tossing a coin, but it involves a system with no

beggars. King hopes things will change when he says, “A true revolution of values will soon look

uneasily on the glancing contrast of poverty and wealth” (King, P. 7). King is saying that

Americans need to ultimately change their perspective and end poverty. This is important

because earlier he mentioned that the poverty program was ended because of the war. King

also asserts that in order to end Communism, America must change its values and that its

greatest defense is to do what is just. King says that, “We must with positive action seek to

remove those conditions of poverty, insecurity and injustice which are the fertile soil in which the

seed of communism grows and develops” (King, P. 8). King would probably agree that it would

be wiser to spend money on helping end poverty than on dropping bombs.